OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

legalxml-econtracts message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Minutes Draft from the OASIS Legal XML Member Section Electronic Contracts Technical Committee Secretary (File id: @@2162)


To:    Mr. Daniel Greenwood
       Chairperson
       The OASIS Legal XML Member Section Electronic Contracts Technical Committee

       Mr. Jason Harrop
       Chairperson
       The OASIS Legal XML Member Section Electronic Contracts Technical Committee

From:  Laurence L. Leff, Ph. D.
       Secretary
       The OASIS Legal XML Member Section Electronic Contracts Technical Committee

Re:    Minutes Teleconference of April 23rd

Enclosed, please find my proposed minutes for the April 23rd Teleconference 

I hear that you would like me to send the minutes out with out the chairs
reviewing the minutes first.  My experience with other technical committees
is that humans often make mistakes, particularly about dates.  In the 
Electronic Court Filing, the delay from having minutes review eliminated
several such problems before the members saw them.

Thus, it would be helpful if you would both
check that everything is in order before I send the minutes to the list.

However, should I not hear from either of the two chairs before one week,
I will go ahead and transmit the minutes to the list without chair review. 
Please page me at 309 367 0787 in addition to sending electronic mail.
This ensures redundancy.
______________________________________________________________________
                     Minutes Teleconference of April Twenty-Third
     Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards
                                    (OASIS)
                           Legal XML Member Section
                       E-Contracts Technical Committee (TC)

Present

Charles Gilliam
Dan Greenwood
Jason Harrop
Laurence L. Leff, Ph.D.
Dave Marvits
John McClure
John Messing

The meeting was called to order at 4:13 Eastern Time, after an informal
discussion of the topics to be covered.  The group decided to cover the
concerns over presentation for display.

Several wordings on this issue to be included in the requirements were
shared by attendees.  These included:

  "The final Technical e-contract specification will encompass
  and directly support the final conclusive displayed version of the contract"

  "The final e-contract will be of the final conclusive displayed
  version of the contract"

  Affirmative requirements are that there be a way to get a unique displayed
  version without specified other technologies.

Dr. Leff pointed out that some contracts may not have a display.  Examples
include contracts that represent a mapping from other XML in electronic
commerce and agreements between electronic agents.  It was
agreed by the group that a display not be necessary to litigate about
a contract or to have an enforceable contract.  Eventual 
users of the standard to emerge from this Technical Committee would not
have to use any display features.  A short discussion followed of the legal
considerations in any litigation or dispute arising from a contract which
consisted of XML markup or other bits and bytes.

It was noted that the enforceability of a contract or some of its terms
may depend upon the display.  Examples include waiver of warranties such
as merchantability.  There was a question whether including an appropriate
attribute in the XML data stream would be sufficient to ensure that such
term be enforceability.  In this case, it would be the responsibility 
of the browser to display that XML in the appropriate conspicuous font.
This situation has a potential for problems if a browser did not display
the marked clause in an appropriate way.

Another question was whether PDF or RTF would be formats that we would
consider in our specifications, or would only XML-based formats be relevant.
Related was whether the XML DSignature standard include signing a PDF or RTF
document.

There was concern that if a contract be displayed in a court, it display
in the same manner as the parties saw it when it was signed.  John Messing 
pointed out that alleged differences in display would be decided by the trier 
of fact.

Dr. Leff excused himself to go to class, closing with an information item.
This was from the proposed minutes of the discussion of the Court Document 
Standard at the recent face-to-face meeting of the Electronic Court Filing 
Technical Committee:

"Printer fidelity with XML.  The XML from a court document prepared
with a Court Document standard would be displayed with a browser.  This
creates several issues as the court may be using a different browser
than the attorney.  Would the attorney accept a situation where the
attorney would see the presentation as the court would see it and have the
opportunity to approve same before officially filing their document?
It was noted that there are fewer concerns with printer fidelity with
PDF files."


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]